Chargers to Los Angeles (1 Viewer)

[trader jake]

J.T. the Brick opened his national radio show tonight with, "If the CBA gets settled quickly, the Chargers would be moving to Los Angeles." According to "sources in the know".

Of course that CBA thing doesn't sound like it's getting resolved shortly. Interesting information either way.

 

[timschochet]

Hadn't heard this, but it would fit in with the news I heard yesterday- that the financial backers of the new proposed downtown stadium (which would be located very close to Staples Center, where the Lakers play) struck a deal with Farmers Insurance as a major player- the new stadium will be called "Farmer's Field".

 

[tommyGunZ]

Not buying it. JT just trying to stir up some attention.

 

[Mr. Retukes]

Hadn't heard this, but it would fit in with the news I heard yesterday- that the financial backers of the new proposed downtown stadium (which would be located very close to Staples Center, where the Lakers play) struck a deal with Farmers Insurance as a major player- the new stadium will be called "Farmer's Field".

How?

 

[Sarnoff]

Hadn't heard this, but it would fit in with the news I heard yesterday- that the financial backers of the new proposed downtown stadium (which would be located very close to Staples Center, where the Lakers play) struck a deal with Farmers Insurance as a major player- the new stadium will be called "Farmer's Field".

How?

"Farmers" and "Chargers" rhyme like "Dawn" and "Don".

 

[flapgreen]

Hadn't heard this, but it would fit in with the news I heard yesterday- that the financial backers of the new proposed downtown stadium (which would be located very close to Staples Center, where the Lakers play) struck a deal with Farmers Insurance as a major player- the new stadium will be called "Farmer's Field".

How?

"Farmers" and "Chargers" rhyme like "Dawn" and "Don".

 

[Truman]

Hadn't heard this, but it would fit in with the news I heard yesterday- that the financial backers of the new proposed downtown stadium (which would be located very close to Staples Center, where the Lakers play) struck a deal with Farmers Insurance as a major player- the new stadium will be called "Farmer's Field".

How?

The Chargers can break the stadium lease between Feb. 1 and April 30 each year, but must then pay the city a fee that gradually falls over time. This year's fee: $26 million.The relative ease of leaving Qualcomm Stadium — simply writing a check — has bolstered concerns that the Chargers would be a top contender to move to Los Angeles, where two wealthy developers have laid out plans to build NFL stadiums. The Chargers, as it so happens, want a new stadium.

But in a recent story about the Los Angeles plans, which again highlighted the Chargers as a leading candidate, ESPN inaccurately described how the lease's termination fee would pay off debts from the 1997 renovations to Qualcomm Stadium.

Contrary to ESPN's report, the lease doesn't say the Chargers must pay off the city's remaining debt — $51 million. The Chargers must simply pay a fixed fee to end the contract.

http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/this_just_i...1cc4c03286.html

The stadium naming rights deal was announced February 1 - the same day the lease expired. The Chargers have until the end of April to break the lease.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

They were the Los Angeles Chargers the last time they won a championship. Maybe it will bring them good luck.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

What a tremendous blow this would be for the city of San Diego. They lose their NBA team to Los Angeles and now they would lose their anchor sports franchise. That's too much. All they have left would be the Padres? Ugh!

 

[JbizzleMan]

PLEASE let this happen.

 

[trader jake]

Not buying it. JT just trying to stir up some attention.

He doesn't strike me as a "stir things up" type of radio host. Does he have a history of doing this? Has he had any inside info on the Changers in the past?

The stadium naming rights deal was announced February 1 - the same day the lease expired.

That strikes me as significant. Of course it could also just be a negotiating ploy with the city of San Diego. It's not like Los Angeles hasn't been used in the past.

 

[Chase Stuart]

They were the Los Angeles Chargers the last time they won a championship. Maybe it will bring them good luck.

They were only on LA for their first season; by the time Keith Lincoln et al won the AFL title on '63, they were in San Diego. The Chargers literally won the championship in San Diego, beating the Pats in Balboa Stadium, thanks to not rostering Marlon McCree.

 

[redBourne]

How many times has LA had an NFL team and lost it? General curiosity.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

been rumored for a long time.

But If LA does finally get a team what location will the NFL use to threaten cities to get stadiums built?

 

[wlwiles]

Hadn't heard this, but it would fit in with the news I heard yesterday- that the financial backers of the new proposed downtown stadium (which would be located very close to Staples Center, where the Lakers play) struck a deal with Farmers Insurance as a major player- the new stadium will be called "Farmer's Field".

How?

"Farmers" and "Chargers" rhyme like "Dawn" and "Don".

WE ARE CHARGERS, bum-ba-da-bum-bum-bum-bum!

 

[RUSF18]

Hadn't heard this, but it would fit in with the news I heard yesterday- that the financial backers of the new proposed downtown stadium (which would be located very close to Staples Center, where the Lakers play) struck a deal with Farmers Insurance as a major player- the new stadium will be called "Farmer's Field".

How?

The Chargers can break the stadium lease between Feb. 1 and April 30 each year, but must then pay the city a fee that gradually falls over time. This year's fee: $26 million.The relative ease of leaving Qualcomm Stadium — simply writing a check — has bolstered concerns that the Chargers would be a top contender to move to Los Angeles, where two wealthy developers have laid out plans to build NFL stadiums. The Chargers, as it so happens, want a new stadium.

But in a recent story about the Los Angeles plans, which again highlighted the Chargers as a leading candidate, ESPN inaccurately described how the lease's termination fee would pay off debts from the 1997 renovations to Qualcomm Stadium.

Contrary to ESPN's report, the lease doesn't say the Chargers must pay off the city's remaining debt — $51 million. The Chargers must simply pay a fixed fee to end the contract.

http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/this_just_i...1cc4c03286.html

The stadium naming rights deal was announced February 1 - the same day the lease expired. The Chargers have until the end of April to break the lease.

I assume "break the lease" means "move out right away"...and not 3 years from now. So, again, how is there a connection between this and the news of the stadium naming rights breaking on February 1st?

 

[trader jake]

been rumored for a long time.But If LA does finally get a team what location will the NFL use to threaten cities to get stadiums built?

San Diego? LOLNot sure there would be one but how many teams are in bad stadium situations right now? Vikings, maybe the Jaguars?

 

[snogger]

J.T. the Brick opened his national radio show tonight with, "If the CBA gets settled quickly, the Chargers would be moving to Los Angeles." According to "sources in the know". Of course that CBA thing doesn't sound like it's getting resolved shortly. Interesting information either way.

Sorry Charger fans, but for us Viking fans this would be GREAT news..

 

[snogger]

Hadn't heard this, but it would fit in with the news I heard yesterday- that the financial backers of the new proposed downtown stadium (which would be located very close to Staples Center, where the Lakers play) struck a deal with Farmers Insurance as a major player- the new stadium will be called "Farmer's Field".

How?

"Farmers" and "Chargers" rhyme like "Dawn" and "Don".

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

been rumored for a long time.But If LA does finally get a team what location will the NFL use to threaten cities to get stadiums built?

San Diego? LOLNot sure there would be one but how many teams are in bad stadium situations right now? Vikings, maybe the Jaguars?

Raiders, 49ers. Vikings, Jags, Chargers

 

[Church of Iggy Pop]

Wait, LA, don't penalize San Diego! Take the Bengals, please!

 

[CalBear]

Dang, if the Raiders had to pay $26 million to get out of Oakland I'd be helping Al load the moving trucks.

 

[TommyGilmore]

How many times has LA had an NFL team and lost it? General curiosity.

Only twice (Rams and Raiders). The Chargers were in the AFL. Los Angeles also had a team in the AAFC in the '40s, which was merged with the Rams when the AAFC merged with the NFL.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

They were the Los Angeles Chargers the last time they won a championship. Maybe it will bring them good luck.

They were only on LA for their first season; by the time Keith Lincoln et al won the AFL title on '63, they were in San Diego. The Chargers literally won the championship in San Diego, beating the Pats in Balboa Stadium, thanks to not rostering Marlon McCree.

Ah, you're right. I was going off the top of my head. And if you were doing the same, I tip my hat to you, because that's a lot of info!

 

[Andrew Garda]

They were the Los Angeles Chargers the last time they won a championship. Maybe it will bring them good luck.

They were only on LA for their first season; by the time Keith Lincoln et al won the AFL title on '63, they were in San Diego. The Chargers literally won the championship in San Diego, beating the Pats in Balboa Stadium, thanks to not rostering Marlon McCree.

Great section in that game in Ron Jaworski's book 'The Games that Changed The Game' and about how the Chargers flummoxed the Pats with their offensive game plan which did the opposite of what Gillman's team normally did.anyway -/tangent

 

[bonesman]

Wait, LA, don't penalize San Diego! Take the Bengals, please!

That's funny... because if you look at the pics of the stadium design it looks like a bunch of people in Bengals jerseys (there's even an 8-5 jersey)

 

[Truman]

Hadn't heard this, but it would fit in with the news I heard yesterday- that the financial backers of the new proposed downtown stadium (which would be located very close to Staples Center, where the Lakers play) struck a deal with Farmers Insurance as a major player- the new stadium will be called "Farmer's Field".

How?

The Chargers can break the stadium lease between Feb. 1 and April 30 each year, but must then pay the city a fee that gradually falls over time. This year's fee: $26 million.The relative ease of leaving Qualcomm Stadium — simply writing a check — has bolstered concerns that the Chargers would be a top contender to move to Los Angeles, where two wealthy developers have laid out plans to build NFL stadiums. The Chargers, as it so happens, want a new stadium.

But in a recent story about the Los Angeles plans, which again highlighted the Chargers as a leading candidate, ESPN inaccurately described how the lease's termination fee would pay off debts from the 1997 renovations to Qualcomm Stadium.

Contrary to ESPN's report, the lease doesn't say the Chargers must pay off the city's remaining debt — $51 million. The Chargers must simply pay a fixed fee to end the contract.

http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/this_just_i...1cc4c03286.html

The stadium naming rights deal was announced February 1 - the same day the lease expired. The Chargers have until the end of April to break the lease.

I assume "break the lease" means "move out right away"...and not 3 years from now. So, again, how is there a connection between this and the news of the stadium naming rights breaking on February 1st?

The stadium naming rights deal was announced the same day for the same amount of money required to move.If they break the ease there are other stadiums they can play in. More than one even.

 

[Michael Brown]

They were the Los Angeles Chargers the last time they won a championship. Maybe it will bring them good luck.

They were only on LA for their first season; by the time Keith Lincoln et al won the AFL title on '63, they were in San Diego. The Chargers literally won the championship in San Diego, beating the Pats in Balboa Stadium, thanks to not rostering Marlon McCree.

If I haven't mentioned it lately, you're the worst.

 

[Dragon1952]

No way the Chargers 'bolt' for LA...ha ha.

 

[Adebisi]

And if the Dolphins win the Super Bowl this Sunday, the Broncos are moving to Montreal. Mark it down.

 

[QuizGuy66]

J.T. the Brick opened his national radio show tonight with, "If the CBA gets settled quickly, the Chargers would be moving to Los Angeles." According to "sources in the know". Of course that CBA thing doesn't sound like it's getting resolved shortly. Interesting information either way.

Sorry Charger fans, but for us Viking fans this would be GREAT news..

Um, I thought I heard that the NFL wouldn't mind TWO teams moving to LA. And with the Chargers taking the AFC slot... -QG

 

[Sarnoff]

J.T. the Brick opened his national radio show tonight with, "If the CBA gets settled quickly, the Chargers would be moving to Los Angeles." According to "sources in the know". Of course that CBA thing doesn't sound like it's getting resolved shortly. Interesting information either way.

Sorry Charger fans, but for us Viking fans this would be GREAT news..

Um, I thought I heard that the NFL wouldn't mind TWO teams moving to LA. And with the Chargers taking the AFC slot... -QG

Naming rights have a clause for two teams in the same stadium. Would be cool for L.A., like the Giants/Jets.

 

[gorf]

Hadn't heard this, but it would fit in with the news I heard yesterday- that the financial backers of the new proposed downtown stadium (which would be located very close to Staples Center, where the Lakers play) struck a deal with Farmers Insurance as a major player- the new stadium will be called "Farmer's Field".

How?

"Farmers" and "Chargers" rhyme like "Dawn" and "Don".

WE ARE CHARGERS, bum-ba-da-bum-bum-bum-bum!

this clearly did not get enough love.

 

[bostonfred]

The don of a new era imo.

 

[Andrew Garda]

Having lived in LA for 20 years before moving east I have this to say:

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Bri]

seems like you guys are saying there's no stadium but there is a company (Farmer's) that signed rights to name the stadium

 

[Bri]

Jaguars and Bills are still a possibility. IIRC The NFL gave them permission (not even sure they needed to, hence why it's considerable) last January.

Maybe they need this possibility looming and it isn't truly one?

The Toronto-Bills agreement wouldn't seem to be a prob. The NFL could send an NFL team to Toronto to satisfy that agreement especially since they send teams to other countries in preseason and then London. One of the things that many expect to come along with the two byes is more games in foreign countries. (one or two, not a ton)

ETA here's "MJD"s shutdown corner blog's take on it last January-

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_...?urn=nfl-212070

and sorry Jags fans but this was funny

Building a bigger stadium for Jacksonville football fans would be like building a bigger public library for high school drop-out crystal meth tweakers. It's just not going to get much use.

It's kind of a strange announcement, and if I were a Jaguars or Bills fan, I'd take it a little personally. Basically, the L.A. people have just announced that they hate you and are planning on taking something that you love. That's just not very nice.

 

[Blutarsky]

In their heyday, Rodney Harrison and Junior Seau would not have been pleased with the Chargers plans to move away from the border. It would have made their drive for PEDs even longer.

 

[QuizGuy66]

Interesting thought - so what happens if two teams from the same conference (presumably AFC) both move to LA to share the stadium? Somebody's gotta be switching to the NFC - no?

I guess I can see something where if it was, say Jacksonville and San Diego moving in that the Jaguars would switch divisions with the Rams.

Interesting to think about.

-QG

 

[TommyGilmore]

Interesting thought - so what happens if two teams from the same conference (presumably AFC) both move to LA to share the stadium? Somebody's gotta be switching to the NFC - no?I guess I can see something where if it was, say Jacksonville and San Diego moving in that the Jaguars would switch divisions with the Rams.

Or the Cardinals. Unless you want to move KC to the AFC South and have both the Chargers and LAX-onville in the AFC West.

 

[gump]

Building a bigger stadium for Jacksonville football fans

The current 'Gator Bowl' seats 82K...was built in '95...and was renovated with new luxury boxes in '03 prior to the SB.

 

[Bri]

Building a bigger stadium for Jacksonville football fans

The current 'Gator Bowl' seats 82K...was built in '95...and was renovated with new luxury boxes in '03 prior to the SB.

it was still a funny quote

 

[gump]

Building a bigger stadium for Jacksonville football fans

The current 'Gator Bowl' seats 82K...was built in '95...and was renovated with new luxury boxes in '03 prior to the SB.

it was still a funny quote

I caught up...but honestly....a RB from UCLA questioning attendance?

 

[RhymesMcJuice]

Time for a football stadium deal

Los Angeles Times Editorial

With jobs, tax revenue and the revitalization of a public asset on the line, the Los Angeles City Council should quit dawdling and allow the project to move forward.

June 19, 2011

Ever since the Los Angeles Raiders took their ball and went home to Oakland in the mid-1990s, Los Angeles has waged an intermittent and sometimes half-hearted campaign to lure the National Football League back to the city, by far the nation's largest without a football team. That effort has been marked by exuberance and disappointment, misdirection and considerable public indifference. As the City Council takes the measure of a new proposal to construct a football stadium downtown, it should recall that history in full — realizing that the city's future does not depend on whether the NFL plays here, but also appreciating that it should not let the most promising football deal it has ever received slip through its fingers because it was too slow or too political to reason effectively.

While safeguarding the city's interests, the council should, over the next few weeks, do what it often finds difficult: act decisively, in this case to approve a memorandum of understanding with AEG, the Denver-based sports and entertainment group, and allow the stadium to move forward.

What's in it for L.A.?

Although some residents have long been eager for football to return, the quest for a local team has failed to engage many others who care little about the sport and have plenty of options to entertain themselves. The conventional draw for a team — the desire for the prestige it would confer — has been notably absent here. But if Los Angeles doesn't need the prestige of a team, it does have other reasons to want this deal. AEG and its chief executive, Tim Leiweke, have revitalized the south end of downtown with their phenomenally successful Staples Center and adjoining LA Live. Once a collection of dilapidated buildings and parking lots, the area now is a hub of sports, entertainment, restaurants and hotels, as vibrant late at night as it is during the day. The stadium would build on that with an arena large enough to hold events as diverse as Pac 12 football, the Final Four, soccer and major concerts.

That means jobs — not just temporary construction jobs but also permanent positions at the stadium as well as at the stores, restaurants and hotels that this project is expected to attract. And with those jobs would come tax revenue for the city, county and schools, benefits that even the least passionate sports fan can appreciate.

There is an additional aspect of this project that makes it more attractive than other recent football proposals. It promises not only a team and the development that accompanies it, but the rescue of a stranded civic facility, the beleaguered Los Angeles Convention Center. As envisioned by AEG and Leiweke, the new stadium would sit on the land now occupied by the center's West Hall. That hall is aging and unworkable, disconnected from the newer, larger South Hall. For it to be functional and appealing, the city estimates that it needs $80 million worth of improvements. Instead, AEG proposes that the new stadium replace the West Hall and link up to the South Hall, creating a vast, contiguous convention space — enough to attract the very large conventions that are today out of Los Angeles' reach.

Then there is the tax revenue the project is expected to generate. Today, the city barely breaks even on the operations of the convention center and is saddled with more than $45 million of annual debt service on the South Hall. If the stadium is built, one consulting firm hired by AEG predicts that it would spur development of 3,064 new hotel rooms, which would nearly double the tax revenue currently generated by existing hotel rooms downtown. That analysis suggests an additional $26 million to $33 million in bed taxes for the city; it also estimates that the increase in convention business from major conventions alone would produce an additional $228 million in annual spending — with the state and local governments getting their share of that in taxes. If those estimates hold, then, the city would not only get a new convention center but would be able to pay off its existing one.

That by itself is reason to support this proposal.

What should the council look out for?

The proposed stadium turns on a paradox: If AEG manages only to run it as a football stadium — with 10 to 12 games a year, mostly on Sundays — the effect on traffic and parking downtown would barely be felt. But if AEG maximizes its potential by holding more events, and thus delivering more in jobs and taxes, then its negative effects would escalate as well. In other words, the more successful the facility is, the more it may inconvenience residents. The council should recognize that conundrum and insist on the rigorous analysis that will flesh out the implications of the project.

Where it gets even more complicated is in AEG's plans for boxing or wrestling or the Final Four. Those events and others like them take place at all hours and would put real stress on the area's already groaning road network. Recognizing that, AEG has grand dreams of bolstering the public transportation options around LA Live and of hosting the first Super Bowl in history at which most fans arrive on foot, either from nearby hotels or from train stations or shuttles. It's the council's duty to see that those plans are not just selling tools but real proposals cemented in the ultimate deal, with AEG bearing its share of the responsibility for planning and funding them.

AEG is also seeking protection from the California Environmental Quality Act, which allows those affected by projects — including, in some cases, competitors — to file lawsuits blocking them. AEG is hardly the only entity to protest some of CEQA's more permissive litigation rules, and a wholesale review of the act is not only in order but in fact underway in Sacramento. If those negotiations result in constructive CEQA reform that helps AEG, so much the better. That said, AEG does not deserve its own environmental law. It should, as it has promised, complete an environmental impact report for the project, and neither the city nor state should exempt it from the rules that apply to others.

Finally and most important, the city needs to be a vigilant guardian of the public purse. The estimates for this project appear to pencil out favorably for the city, but officials need to recall that the convention center once looked like a good investment too. As part of this deal, the city would get new taxes generated by the nearby hotels, stores and restaurants. But it would give up much of the property and sales taxes generated by the new stadium itself (the county and state would keep their share) and allow that money to pay off the bonds used to finance construction. City officials need to see that the government coffers are protected in return.

Initially, AEG proposed taking over the city land beneath the West Hall for $1 a year, on the theory that it was also taking on the responsibility of renovating that hall for the city's benefit. As negotiations have progressed, the two sides now are talking about AEG paying fair-market value for the land. That's appropriate.

The state of play

Earlier this month, Leiweke told Los Angeles Times reporter Sam Farmer that he was losing patience with the City Council, and indicated he was getting ready to walk away. "I'm OK if we get to July 31 and we don't get a deal done," he said. "We move on." Leiweke's apparent imposition of an ultimatum was unseemly — he's already seen by many to wield outsize influence at City Hall — but his impatience is understandable. Los Angeles is an infamously difficult place to pull off a large project.

The council doesn't do anything fast. And, in this case, it's dealing with a project of considerable complexity and uncertainty. It should protect the environment, look for ways to make sure that traffic and parking problems are anticipated, and make AEG pay its share of a project that will reap significant returns. And it should do so quickly.

The construction of a football stadium — or the failure to build it — will not alter the essence of Los Angeles. What AEG has built downtown is no more an expression of Los Angeles than the company's nearly identical KC Live is of Kansas City. These are centers of commerce and entertainment, not culture. Indeed, they come at some cost to culture, as a new stadium will draw business from both the Los Angeles Coliseum and Pasadena's Rose Bowl, authentic monuments to the region's history.

But that history also includes a healthy appreciation for the new, an embrace of commerce and even glitz. A new stadium may create traffic snarls, but so do Dodger Stadium and the Los Angeles Times Festival of Books. Residents complain but grudgingly accept that the area's most appealing attractions come with caveats. And in return, this deal promises jobs, tax revenue and the revitalization of a city asset.

The recent images of the mayor and council members rushing to have their pictures taken with Leiweke did not inspire confidence that the city would strike a hard bargain. Since then, however, the negotiations have sweetened and clarified the benefits. Now, it's incumbent on the city's leadership to quit dawdling, focus on their obligation to the public, and cut the deal.

 

[az_prof]

Jobs? O yes, just what people need: minimum wage, part-time jobs selling pop corn or collecting tickets for 12 home games. That's a joke really.

Tax revenue: whoopy! The city is giving up the tax revenue that the stadium generates. How is this a winner for the public coffer? All of those hotels? For the 12 games. Where most of the attendees will be local fans. Hmmmmm.

Look, if this is such a good business deal why doesn't the business do the deal themselves? Why do they need the public to subsidize their business?

I for one and sick of businesses getting the public to subsidize them at the same time that we don't have money to take care of people's health or to educate our young people.

 

[AmosMoses]

Why do they need the public to subsidize their business?

I'm pretty sure this is how big business works anyway.

 

[az_prof]

Why do they need the public to subsidize their business?

I'm pretty sure this is how big business works anyway.

Screwing the public? Yeah, I think you're right, but that doesn't mean we have to accept it. Why is it ok to tell workers that they can't have a pension because "we are broke" but it isn't ok to tell for-profit businesses that if they want to make huge profits then they need to make the investment themselves? FYI, this is not how capitalism is supposed to work. The capitalist is supposed to make big money because HE takes a risk by putting his money into the capital (building/factory/etc). He is not supposed to be subsidized like some sort of Welfare Queen.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Why do they need the public to subsidize their business?

I'm pretty sure this is how big business works anyway.

Screwing the public? Yeah, I think you're right, but that doesn't mean we have to accept it. Why is it ok to tell workers that they can't have a pension because "we are broke" but it isn't ok to tell for-profit businesses that if they want to make huge profits then they need to make the investment themselves? FYI, this is not how capitalism is supposed to work. The capitalist is supposed to make big money because HE takes a risk by putting his money into the capital (building/factory/etc). He is not supposed to be subsidized like some sort of Welfare Queen.

That's exactly how capitalism is supposed to work. Get the most reward for the least risk possible. If they have something somebody wants, and that somebody is a municipality, they can minimize their risk by transferring it to the municipality in exchange for something only 30 other cities in the country have.Not saying it's right ethically, but that's how it is. The NFL is not a game, nor a sport, nor a pastime, nor a national treasure. It's a business, and they want as much of our money as possible for as little risk as possible.